Transits

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'omit natal to get only positions' behavior and default scoping, which is useful, but says nothing about performance, precision limits, or how the two modes differ in output shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core output and then qualifies it with the optional natal comparison. Nothing is wasted, though the run-on construction packs orb, aspects, and houses into one clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with a nested natal object and no output schema, the description enumerates the main returns (positions, major aspects within orb, natal houses) so an agent knows what to expect. It stops short of describing the response structure, but the rich schema and annotations carry most of the remaining burden.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including patterns, defaults and the Placidus fallback. The description restates the two key defaults (now, 2°) but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific computation (planet positions for a date/time) and its conditional extension (transit-to-natal aspects within an orb, plus transiting-house placement), which is enough for an agent to grasp the resource. It distinguishes the tool from natal_chart by describing the comparison-against-natal behavior, but never names the siblings it should be chosen over.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'given a natal chart' signals the optional comparison mode, and defaults (now, 2° orb) are stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance. An agent must infer that transits is for current/forward-looking positions while natal_chart handles the birth chart.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.